How Many Deaths are Acceptable to Keep the Economy Open: Here's the Answer (retired, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The number of people the people on the right in this forum have deemed expendable is quite an eye opener.
This. ^^ The whole premise of this thread, that we should be willing to sacrifice millions of people, many who are retired and just trying to enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of labor, to save our 401(k)s, is disgusting and abhorrent, and we as a society should reject that thinking unconditionally. But I am not surprised by the OP, unfortunately.
This. ^^ The whole premise of this thread, that we should be willing to sacrifice millions of people, many who are retired and just trying to enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of labor, to save our 401(k)s, is disgusting and abhorrent, and we as a society should reject that thinking unconditionally. But I am not surprised by the OP, unfortunately.
I honestly think they think it’s only the left wanting to stay bunkered in- or old people who no longer support their agenda anymore.
Scary really.
Looking for real answer here, not snark or politics: "at this point" - self-distancing reduced the death count. "at this point" would have a lot more weight behind if we had done absolutely nothing - and had just 40K dead.
But we didn't do "absolutely nothing" did we? Do you believe there was no change? Nothing at all? "Social distancing" (despite evidence from other places) does absolutely nothing at all, for anyone? Waste of time?
Good response, but what I am talking about by saying "at this point" is that we now know much more about COVID-19 than we did six weeks ago, and the fact is that it is not as contagious or as deadly as it was first projected that it might be.
Let's face it, if it was really all that deadly and contagious, there would be very few grocery clerks left to do their jobs right now. YES, some grocery clerks have become ill from the virus, from what I have read (and from what I would have expected) and many medical personnel have also become sick and even died -- which is absolutely horrible -- but we now know that COVID-19 that this is not nearly as deadly as the "Black Death" of the Middle Ages, or even the 1918-19 flu pandemic. (Or at least we know this as COVID-19 exists now.)
If people want to continue to self-isolate, that is just fine with me (and I personally have not left my home except to walk my dog since March 27th and will continue to do that for another ten days, as I am a senior), but at this point, I have every intention of resuming my pre-March life as much as possible starting on April 29th.
And, yes, OF COURSE, social distancing and people taking other precautions HAS greatly helped the figures, but I and others are suggesting that if people are in a "high risk" group, that they continue to take precautions, but that no one should keep the rest of us from going about our lives.
This. ^^ The whole premise of this thread, that we should be willing to sacrifice millions of people, many who are retired and just trying to enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of labor, to save our 401(k)s, is disgusting and abhorrent, and we as a society should reject that thinking unconditionally. But I am not surprised by the OP, unfortunately.
NO ONE has suggested that we should be willing to sacrifice millions of people! (Or at least I have not read even one opinion stating such a thing.)
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,460,386 times
Reputation: 12187
The reality is while a very bad virus COVID was never going to kill more than 5% of the population anywhere, maybe 20% would become sick. So the economy was shuttered for 80% of people to protect 20% that would get sick. I'm not saying that is stupid or shouldn't have been done, just that the majority suffered economically to protect a minority from illness and death.
At first we shut things down because the virus was believed to be high risk for older people. The richest and most powerful people are mostly middle age and older, they have most control of media so they pushed things to shut down. Now the evidence in the USA is strong that COVID is mostly a threat to Black people of all ages, so the narrative has changed somewhat in that it is portrayed as Black people dying for an economy that mostly benefits White people.
This. ^^ The whole premise of this thread, that we should be willing to sacrifice millions of people, many who are retired and just trying to enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of labor, to save our 401(k)s, is disgusting and abhorrent, and we as a society should reject that thinking unconditionally. But I am not surprised by the OP, unfortunately.
It ain't that hard to protect your 401K, a few clicks of a mouse and I put mine in a cash equivalent fund.
NO ONE has suggested that we should be willing to sacrifice millions of people! (Or at least I have not read even one opinion stating such a thing.)
Sigh. Once again, directly from the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
Finally, we get to the TRUE costs in additional deaths (beyond what we have as a society already determined is acceptable), and I'd say 10,000 - the majority of whom are elderly and have already completed 95% of their lives. That is what we truly would be paying in "additional lives lost" in order to keep from falling into a Great Depression with 30% unemployed, and the increase in disease, crime, and suicide that comes from desperation of poverty and isolation.
She is saying the TRUE cost is only some older people. That's what the "additional lives lost" will be, and they are not worth the economic fallout.
This. ^^ The whole premise of this thread, that we should be willing to sacrifice millions of people, many who are retired and just trying to enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of labor, to save our 401(k)s, is disgusting and abhorrent, and we as a society should reject that thinking unconditionally. But I am not surprised by the OP, unfortunately.
What if for every life we save due to a lockdown, ten people become homeless due to being laid off? And ten more people develop a drug addiction due to the stress of isolation? And ten more people commit suicide due to losing their homes and jobs? Is this an "equal" trade?
What about 20 people? Or 30? At what point does continuing the lockdown do more harm than opening things back up? Because there is a point where that happens and the longer this goes on the closer it gets.
What if for every life we save due to a lockdown, ten people become homeless due to being laid off? And ten more people develop a drug addiction due to the stress of isolation? And ten more people commit suicide due to losing their homes and jobs? Is this an "equal" trade?
What about 20 people? Or 30? At what point does continuing the lockdown do more harm than opening things back up? Because there is a point where that happens and the longer this goes on the closer it gets.
You are assuming that opening back up will not lead to many, many more deaths. What do you base that on? The virus is still here, still highly contagious, and we have nothing to fight it with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
